Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that the entire document text is returned and how to use it, which is useful context, but says nothing about size limits, truncation, or behavior on an invalid slug.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences with no filler, front-loading what the tool returns. The brief usage instruction is compressed into the second sentence rather than expanded, though it is terse to the point of being cryptic.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, 'full text of one ASRM guide' adequately sets expectations for the return value. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid or ambiguous slug) and the relationship to the search_guides sibling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of the 'asrm.ai/learn/...' url form adds slight value beyond the schema's 'slug from search_guides, or its asrm.ai/learn url', but no format or validation detail.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States the specific resource (one ASRM guide) and what is returned (full text), and the two accepted key forms (slug or asrm.ai/learn url). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_guides, but 'one ASRM guide' vs a search implies a retrieval-vs-discovery split.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance and never names the sibling search_guides, which is the natural prerequisite for obtaining a slug. The only usage-like instruction ('Answer from the text and link the url') concerns post-retrieval behavior, not tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.